D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Anjum Kadari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
| Table of Contents |
| A. Introduction |
| B. Background |
| a. History of Madarsas |
| b. Teaching in Madarsas |
| c. Madarsa Act |
| d. Steps taken by the State Government and the Board pursuant to the Madarsa Act |
| e. Proceedings before the High Court and Impugned Judgment |
| f. Steps taken by the State Government and the proceedings before this Court |
| C. Submissions |
| D. Secularism and regulation of minority educational institutions |
| a. Secularism in the constitutional context |
| b. Testing the validity of a statute for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution |
| c. Regulation of minority educational institutions |
| d. The Madarsa Act is a regulatory legislation |
| e. Interplay of Article 21-A and Article 30 |
| E. Legislative Competence |
| a. The Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25, List III |
| b. Certain provisions of the Madarsa Act conflict with the UGC Act enacted under Entry 66, List I |
| c. The entire Madarsa Act need not be struck |
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Anshuman Singh Rathore versus Union of India and others
Dr M Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India
Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab
Ahmedabad St Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat
In re Kerala Education Bill 1957
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [Para 46] – Relied.
State of A P v. McDowell & Co.
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608 [Para 51
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial
All Saints High School v. Government of AP
Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society v. State of Maharashtra
Sidhrajbhai Sabbai v. State of Gujarat
P A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
Ahmedabad St Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat
Milli Talimi Mission v. State of Bihar
Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of India
Bihar State Madarasa Education Board v. Madarasa Hanfia Arabic College
St Stephens College v. University of Delhi
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India
Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India
State of Tamil Nadu v. K Shyam Sunder
Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1 [64] [Para 75
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K S Gandhi
Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. vs Steel Authority of India & Anr.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of W.B.
Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India & Anr.
Osmania University Teachers’ Association vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Dr Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P.
Prof. Yashpal & Anr vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420 [Paras 93
Kalyani Mathivanan versus K.V. Jeyaraj
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India 1957 SCC OnLine SC 11 [Para 102] – Relied.
(1) Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 is not un constitutional – However, provisions of Madarsa Act which seek to regulate higher-education degrees, such as Fazil and Kamil are uncon....
The Madarsa Act, 2004 violates the secular principles of the Constitution and the right to quality education, rendering it unconstitutional.
Point of Law : Income from affiliation fees and the examination fees as the term 'fee' itself indicates something that is charged for rendering the service in respect of those two items which is a so....
Point of Law : Law could not be deemed to be unreasonable unless it was totally destructive or annihilative of the right under Art.30(1).
The fixation of government seat quotas in unaided minority institutions is unconstitutional and violates their fundamental right to autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The right of minority educational institutions to administer admissions under Article 30(1) is subject to reasonable regulations by the State to maintain educational standards.
The rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 of the Constitution of India are subject to reasonable regulations that are necessary to....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.